When rangefinders bite

[rogerzilla]

Two on the last roll. You know when you compose a shot really, really precisely and then parallax catches you out? I'm not talking about framing (which is largely compensated for by Leica M moving framelines) but about the relationship of subject features at different distances. Frame someone's head in a distant arch? Forget it. Take a shot through a doorway just revealing an ornate chair inside? The door frame ends upo obscuring part of the chair.

Does anyone make a tripod attachment that lets you frame the shot and then shift the camera body up and to the left so the lens is where the VF was? Mamiya used to have something similar for their TLRs.

 

[doolittle]

Well there is a thing you can attach onto a tripod to take care of this, it's called an SLR 😀

 

[FrankS]

Use the best tool for the task.

 

[batterytypehah!]

You can't be serious. You would lug a tripod around just for this?

 

[rogerzilla]

No, I'm not serious. I've tried moving my head marginally to the left after framing to reduce the error and it sometimes works.

 

[zauhar]

Two on the last roll. You know when you compose a shot really, really precisely and then parallax catches you out? I'm not talking about framing (which is largely compensated for by Leica M moving framelines) but about the relationship of subject features at different distances. Frame someone's head in a distant arch? Forget it. Take a shot through a doorway just revealing an ornate chair inside? The door frame ends upo obscuring part of the chair.

Does anyone make a tripod attachment that lets you frame the shot and then shift the camera body up and to the left so the lens is where the VF was? Mamiya used to have something similar for their TLRs.

Roger I was bitten by this recently. I had a "clever" shot of a distant landscape taken through a hole in an outdoor sculpture. The hole was "off" in the final pic (it was very close to the lens).

Could this not be compensated for by focussing on the "right" subject? For example, I wanted the distant landscape in focus, so it was set at infinity, which messed up the parallax correction for the close-up hole. My thinking was, I should have focussed on the hole, framed, and then set focus to infinity without moving the camera. Would that not have worked?

Randy

 

[FrankS]

Roger I was bitten by this recently. I had a "clever" shot of a distant landscape taken through a hole in an outdoor sculpture. The hole was "off" in the final pic (it was very close to the lens).

Could this not be compensated for by focussing on the "right" subject? For example, I wanted the distant landscape in focus, so it was set at infinity, which messed up the parallax correction for the close-up hole. My thinking was, I should have focussed on the hole, framed, and then set focus to infinity without moving the camera. Would that not have worked?

Randy

No. There is still a difference in perspective between the viewfinder and the lens which actually forms the image.

 

[rogerzilla]

Here are the two from the last film. Those two inches or so make all the difference. The second one is silly and really had no chance of working except with an SLR, but I'm annoyed about the first one.

 

[Roger Hicks]

With the 12/5.6 Voigtländer, I measured the distance from the VF to the centre of the lens; Magic-Markered the tripod column where it met the tripod boss; and cranked it up by exactly the distance measured. Not as easy as using an SLR, but easier than carrying a separate SLR system. For two of my non-SLR, non-view-camera MF cameras (Alpa, Graflex) I have ground glass backs.

Cheers,

R.

 

[batterytypehah!]

I don't think only parallax error is to blame in the chair shot. You're also tilting the camera down. Which is the way to go for your subject, but as a result those nearby verticals kill it.

 

[Keith]

Well there is a thing you can attach onto a tripod to take care of this, it's called an SLR 😀

Exactly ... relying on a rangefinder for absolute framing accuracy is like asking your cat to bark! 😀

 

[zauhar]

No. There is still a difference in perspective between the viewfinder and the lens which actually forms the image.

But is that not the whole point of the parallax correction - the framelines shift down when you focus on something close to indicate the portion of the view seen by the lens. What am I missing?

I do realize that if the object is too close that won't work, but then I should also not be able to focus.

Randy

 

[Nomad Z]

Parallax is to do with the positional relationships of objects along a line of view, when those objects are different distances away.

Try this...

Close one eye, and hold up a finger in front of the open eye, about 8" away.
Then hold up a finger on the other hand 8" away from the first finger.
Move the fingers so that they are lined up with each other.
Swap eyes while keeping the fingers still.

They will no longer be lined up - that's parallax error.

 

[stratcat]

That's why Ansel Adams in 'The Camera' says the moving frameline feature should be called 'parallax compensation' as it can't really correct for the relative positions of objects along a line of view.

 

[dct]

Right. The nice moving frame on focussing gives you a good approximation to circumvent framing errors. But it cannot correct any problems coming from the different angles the VF and the lens are pointing to the object. This is an immanent drawback of separate VF constructions.

I learned it the hard way already before my RF days with analog VF P&S and TLR...

 

[Keith]

Right. The nice moving frame on focussing gives you a good approximation to circumvent framing errors. But it cannot correct any problems coming from the different angles the VF and the lens are pointing to the object. This is an immanent drawback of separate VF constructions.

I learned it the hard way already before my RF days with analog VF P&S and TLR...

I too learned the hard way that this can be a problem ... paticularly when shooting into sunlight through trees etc where a few centimeters either way can make a real difference to lens flare! 😛

 

[ruby.monkey]

Bite the bullet and buy an X100. 😉

 

[Neare]

Why not try an external vf as it will be positioned directly above the lens. Vertical may still be off, but horizontal parallax for your chairs through doorways should be fixed.

 

[Sarcophilus Harrisii]

But is that not the whole point of the parallax correction - the framelines shift down when you focus on something close to indicate the portion of the view seen by the lens. What am I missing?

I do realize that if the object is too close that won't work, but then I should also not be able to focus.

Randy

The moving frame lines enable you to adjust just that - the frame of your shot. But nothing short of moving the position of the camera itself, can compensate for the difference in perspective you will see on film (or captured by a sensor, whichever applies) and that is the fundamental disadvantage of a rangefinder (or a TLR) compared to a single lens reflex.
Regards,
Brett

 

[brbo]

Are those two example shots flipped?!

As it looks like those were taken by a camera that has taking lens on the left side and the viewing lens (viewfinder) on the right side.